You are right about South Africa. Ideally you would of want England to stay together after 2005. That isn't happening. Flintoff will never be the bowling force he was, Simon Jones has one good series and than does a Lord Lucan, Trescothick is not well and should take his time coming back.
Hoggard may soon be past his.
Harmison looks likely to be a enigma.
The batting looks good I must agree.
So England are second to the Kangroo's but it did look different in September 2005.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

England are more than a reasonable side, they are better than anyone but Australia and without Langer, Warne and McGrath the next Ashes will be interesting.

India may have some batman but IMO their batting line up is also on the wane and more to the point what bowlers do they have??

Top post FF. England have one of the youngest test teams around and even the likes of Hoggard are still improving. I see the core of this side playing in the next two Ashes series. What will the Aussie side be like in 4 years time?

__________________
Mark.

Ohhh here we go again

We had, what? Four players retire over the summer. Warne, McGrath, Martyn and Langer and then went on to win a world cup with a team that had 3 or 4 regulars out for either most or all of the series. We had to bring back that old fella called Hayden (how'd he go again?).

People still dont get that out domestic competition is tougher than most of the international arena. Players who come streight into the team at 28+ are debuting with tons.

Take a look at who came into the team and profomed during the world cup: Tait, 23 wickets at 20. Bracken 16 wickets at 16, Watson , Clarke 11/436/87.

And lets not forget who's on the bench: Jaques, Lee, Rogers, Johnson, Hodge ect.

Just because the best players in Aus are 30+ at the momment, does'nt mean that our B team is'nt still better than your A team.

__________________
It's hard enough to remember my opinions, without remembering my reasons for them!
Nietzsche

As I think I noted earlier in this thread... the class chasm starts with Australia... and the chasing pack contains a mix of both top interntional sides AND top domestic sides.

I don't doubt for a moment that if all cricket teams in the world descended on Australia for a 6 month extravaganza... Australia's best domestic sides would eclipse the majority of Test playing sides. I'd also bet on several English counties trouncing more than half the Test playing nations.

All of which suggests that the class chasm is not in danger of closing until the rest of the world sorts out a vibrant domestic cricket structure with a level of competition to rival the top of the Aussie domestic game: until that happens... other Test sides will be constantly waiting for players to learn their game in the Test arena whilst Australia moves from finished-article to finished article.

The only thing that will drag Australia down is passing over talent like Rogers, MacGill and Hilfenhaus in order to accomodate wastrels like Watson, Symonds, White and Tait... though even the latter quartet of wastrels would be in contention for a side as poor as th current WI lot!

ps. The England team should really be in the same position as the Aussies.... constantly drafting in finished articles... but thus far it's happened mostly in the batting: Fletcher's greatest failing was on this front, where he consistently overlooked seasoned bowlers in favour of kids. Fortunately, he's gone.... and Sidebottom's selection suggests the Moore's regime has more time for seasoned county cricketers and will send kids like Plunkett, Anderson and Mahmood off to learn their trade PRIOR to gaining caps!

Three names - Cook, Strauss and Prior - what did they all do in their first Test... all of them were under 28 on début...

So what does that say about our ability to develop players? It takes until 28 to make an Aussie Test player, but our system turns them out before 28???

I'm not saying the aussie domestic game is weak, it clearly isnt, but you cannot replace players of that class. There are two all time greats there! In 4 years time i doubt Gilchrist will still be playing and by that time Ponting may well have retired and be enjoying his status as Australias second best batsman of all time.

From the 2006 Ashes team the Aussies will have lost 3, possibly 4 all time greats. No matter how good your domestic game is you cant replace 4 players of that calibre.

__________________
Mark.

The point is'nt that younger players could'nt step up, but that we have better players who are older.

The likes of Cosgrove, Voges, Birt ect. are brilliant players but so are the Hodges, Husseys ect. And the more experienced players are always going to get the nod over younger players. Look at Hussey! The guy comes into the team and plays the role of a captain's innings.

That's what they said when the invincibles retiered, but we're still kicking your butts.

How about before writting off the next generation of Aussie youngsters, you see what the next generation will look like? I'd love to see how Henriques is playing in 4 years time...

__________________
It's hard enough to remember my opinions, without remembering my reasons for them!
Nietzsche

Concidering these older guys that never got a proper long go at international test level or not at all.

Current older players still around that never got a go at test level or should have had a longer run at test level, and would have played in any other test side in the world.

Darren Lehmann
Test: 27 tests, 42 inn, 1798 runs at 44.95, hs 177, 5x100, 10x50, Sr 61.80
ODI: 117 mat, 101 inn, 3078 runs at 38.96, hs 119, 4x100, 17x50, Sr 81.35
FC: 282 mat, 476 inn: 25,571 runs at 57.72, hs 339, 81x100, 111x50

Martin Love
Test: 5 test, 8 inn, 233 runs at 46.60, hs 100*, 1x100, 1x50 Sr 48.94
FC: 201 mat, 351 inn: 16,015 runs at 50.20, hs 300*, 42x100, 73x50

Stuart Law
Test: 1 test, 1 inn, 54 runs at -, hs 54*, 1x50, Sr 45.76
ODI: 54 mat, 51 inn, 1237 runs at 26.89, hs 110, 1x100, 7x50, Sr 75.28
FC: 341 mat, 559 innings: 25,260 runs at 50.72, hs 263, 76x100, 115x50

Brad Hodge
Test: 5 mat, 9 inn, 409 runs at 58.42, hs 203*, 1x100, 1x50, Sr 51.77
ODI: 18 mat, 15 inn, 516 runs at 39.69, hs 123, 1x100, 3x50, Sr 93.98
FC - 192 mat, 338 inn: 14,798 runs at 48.51, hs 302*, 45x100, 55x50

Michael Hussey
Test: 16 test, 26 inn, 1597 runs at 79.85, hs 182, 5x100, 8x50, Sr 52.72
ODI: 72 mat, 54 inn, 1826 runs at 58.90, hs 109*, 2x100, 10x50, Sr 90.39
FC: 193 mat, 345 inn: 16,956 runs at 54.34, hs 331*, 44x100, 75x50
Stuart Clark

Matthew Elliot
Test: 21 mat, 36 inn, 1172 runs at 33.48, Hs 199, 3x100, 4x50
ODI: 1 mat, 1 inn, 1 run at 1.00
FC: 206 mat, 379 inn: 16,822 runs at 47.78, Hs 203, 50x100, 81x50

Michael Di Venuto
ODI: 9 mat, 9 inn, 241 runs at 26.77, hs 89, 2x50, Sr 85.76
FC: 247 mat, 438 inn: 18,307 runs at 44.21, hs 230, 41x100, 109x50

Michael Bevan
Test: 18 test, 30 inn, 785 runs at 29.07, hs 91, 0x100, 6x50, Sr 39.80
ODI: 232 mat, 196 inn, 6912 runs at 53.58, hs 108*, 6x100, 46x50, Sr 74.16,
FC: 237 mat, 400 inn: 19,147 runs at 57.32, hs 216, 68x100, 81x50

Michael Kasprowicz
Test: 38 tests, 113 wickets at 32.88, bbi 7/36, bbm 8/92, Econ 3.12, Sr 63.18
ODI: 43 mat, 67 wickets at 24.98, bbi 5/45, Econ 4.51, Sr 33.20
FC - 237 mat, 944 wickets at 26.52, bbi 9/36 Econ 3.09, Sr 51.43, 51x5wi, 6x10wm

Andy Bichel
Test: 19 mat, 58 wickets at 32.24, bbi 5/50, bbm 6/125, Econ 3.36, Sr 57.51]
ODI: 67 mat, 78 wickets at 31.57, bb 7/20, Econ 4.53, Sr 41.75
FC - 175 mat, 725 wickets at 26.13, bb 9/93, Econ 3.19, Sr 49.05, 33x5wi, 6x10wh
Batt - 5212 runs at 24.93, hs 142, 6x100, 21x50

Stuart MacGill
Test: 40 tests, 198 wickets at 27.20, bbi 8/108, bbm 12/107, Econ 3.16, Sr 51.57
ODI: 3 mat, 6 wickets at 17.50, bb 4/19, Econ 3.50, Sr 30.00
FC - 174 mat, 739 wickets at 29.88, bb 8/108, Econ 3.39, Sr 52.88, 42x5wi, 6x10wm

Stuart Clark
Test: 9 tests, 47 wickets at 17.80, bbi 5/55, bbm 9/89, Econ 2.45, Sr 43.57
ODI: 25 mat, 36 wickets at 31.47, bb 4/54, Econ 5.36, Sr 35.16
FC - 76 mat, 288 wickets at 26.57, bb 8/58, Econ 2.89, Sr 55.00, 12x5wi, 1x10wm

Nathan Bracken
Test: 5 tests, 12 wickets at 42.08, bbi 4/48, bbm 4/71, Econ 2.72, Sr 92.50
ODI: 67 mat, 112 wickets at 21.36, bb 5/67, Econ 4.34, Sr 29.49
FC - 57 mat, 181 wickets at 26.71, bb 7/4, Econ 2.55, Sr 62.68

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Nice stats Quagmire but a few of those were tried in the test arena and failed miserably,Elliot and Bevan being prime examples and Kasprowicz was a pie thrower.

Must try harder.

Yes Quaggy, I agree with Greg. Those stats mean nothing in the test arena. I am sure that players like Hick and Ramprakash have first class stats similar to those of the players you mentioned but they could not cut it in test cricket. your assumption that all those guys would walk into any test side is laughable to say the least. Can you back that statement up. I mean I cant think of any of those guys making India. When India's batting line up was at their prime who would you have replaced.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?